I Hate Los Angeles But There Are Some Great Films Set There, Here's Ten of Them

Sterling Hayden and Elliot Gould at the beach in The Long Goodbye

I do not like Los Angeles. Never have. Never will. It’s a place where people drive their cars to visit a next door neighbor. There is no charm. No downtown. Nothing but schlock and gloss and edifice. There are beautiful neighborhoods but they have no soul. It is an endless sea of people, cars, streets, freeways and parking lots. There are many malls. You can find anything you need in L.A, but nothing you’d want. So much of everything is nothing.

New York — a million times the city L.A. is — has been the setting for countless classic films and hundreds of good ones and of course quite a few mediocre and bad ones. L.A. cannot compare — even though it is where many films are made — but it has been the setting for some of American cinemas greatest films. In other words for New York I could probably list fifty great films. For other cities, five would be a stretch, for L.A. I managed a top ten. 

Here it is.

Chinatown (1974) Polanski. One of the ten greatest films of all time and the one that is the classic expression of what the L.A. area is all about: greed, corruption and water rights. L.A. between the wars was not a boomtown but a boommetropolis. Polanski, brilliant set and costume designers and a cast led by Jack Nicholson and Faye Dunaway made it all look luscious. L.A. was certainly more habitable then and maybe had a bit of charm. Maybe not in Chinatown though.

Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (2019) Tarantino. This the L.A. of fifty areas ago. It’s  good in in depicting that time that you can’t believe it’s time-stamped 2019. The sights the sound (it’s the car radios in the background that clinch the deal) and you’d swear the smell of L.A. in 1969. A masterpiece of design and mood and of capturing a place and time.

Sunset Blvd.(195) Wilder. Here we go back to the L.A. of 1950 when the boom was cresting and Hollywood and the studio system were still riding high. The decadence is on full display via the home of aging silent star Norma Desmond (Gloria Swanson in almost a case of it takes one to know one), the desperate wannabe, Joe Gillis is captured perfectly by William Holden. It’s sad, creepy but magnificent. 

The Big Sleep (1946) Hawks. This is noir L.A. at its best, which can be quite entertaining though generally not comparable to noir New York or San Francisco. L.A. actually looks interesting here. Neighborhoods, cafes and that bohemian house where the initial murder takes place.

Double Indemnity (1944) Wilder. Here again L.A. looks tolerable. The Dietrichson home and neighborhood are pleasant enough. Downtown L.A. is a wonderfully noir-like as is Walter Neff’s apartment. Overall it feels less L.A. than the other films here listed. That’s a good thing.

Pulp Fiction (1994) Tarantino. Nineties L.A. Get your kahuna burger. There’s nothing pretty about this L.A. and we see plenty of it. It is the functional L.A. with places to hang your hat, eateries, clubs and — if you’re into it —drug dealers. Nobody stops to look at what’s around them. There’s too much going on for that. A great place to be famous or anonymous.

Shampoo (1975) Ashby. It was set in November 1968 and filmed in ’74-75 so it captures a bit of both eras. This is a hip L.A. with Warren Beatty playing the classic Southern Californian — totally vacuous and yet desired. Riding his chopper from one sexual assignation to the next, he’s totally oblivious to any “real world” problems. He’s all in that empty head — ya know, just like L.A. itself. That party in the hills is L.A. at its hippest.

Rebel Without a Cause (195 5) Ray. High school L.A. the Griffith observatory and some of the homes seem pleasant enough. This is L.A. as an over-populated suburb. Gum-snapping, hot rods and the sense that there’s gotta be a malt shop around the corner. It’s teen land.

Boyz N the Hood (1991) Singleton. Not the L.A. we’re used to seeing in films. This is heavily African-American and say, where have Black people been in other L.A. films? Except for the maids and valet parking attendants they’ve been tucked away. This is a very real L.A. with starkly human stories and tragedies. A rare but important glimpse into the L.A. that their police forces tried to beat into submission.

The Long Goodbye (1973) Altman. Seventies noir L.A. with an updated version of the same Philip Marlowe Bogie played in the Big Sleep. This time it's an uber cool Elliot Gould doing the honors. Altman-style L.A. is voguish noir, with naked girls next door and angry mobsters showing up unexpectedly. There’s also the big beach house and parties. Looks like fun.

What To Do When There are Multiple Versions of a Film, The Blogger Advises on Nine Such Cases

Blackmail by Hitchcock

Something that’s become easy these days is watching a movie. Used to be that you would have to wait for a film to appear in theaters again or worse, hope it showed up on TV.  In which case it would be riddled with commercial breaks — yuck! You had no control. Today you can watch virtually any picture you’ve a mind to. For me, as an example, a film I’m interested in — especially if it’s one I love — could be part of my extensive DVD collection (over 300 titles). It might be available on Netflix, The Criterion Channel, HBO, Hulu, TCM, You Tube, Peacock or Amazon. In the past few years I’ve only come across a handful of movies that I can’t find anywhere. Yes, finding a movie to watch is easy. Unless….

It has multiple versions. Which one to watch? If you’re going to invest two hours in a film it damn well better be the better version of the two or the best version of the five. Let me see if I can help.

As a general rule the “extended cut” or “director’s version” or especially the “extended director’s cut/version” is better. But not always. Often there’s a director’s cut because the suits at the studio thought the film too long and butchered it. Okay, sometimes they didn’t butcher it, but they did take out key scenes. Of course, sometimes studios make cuts that improve a film, the director was over-indulgent. Usually not.

One example is Orson Welles’ The Magnificent Ambersons (1942) Welles. The story is that Welles made a masterpiece. Then he left the country and the studio got a hold of his print and eviscerated it. Welles was mortified and refused to have anything to do with the new version. Sadly, a copy of the original has never been found and may not even exist. The studio version was a very good film. But a very good film is a far cry from a masterpiece. 

Alfred Hitchcock has to be in any discussion of the greatest directors of all time. He made cinematic classics from the silent era through the Sixties. But he also made two absolute clunkers: The Paradine Case and Jamaica Inn. What was different about those two besides the fact that they stunk? The studios re-cut them. When you’re watching one of those films (and I’d advise against it) you’re not truly seeing a Hitchcock film.

I cannot advise you on every film that has multiple versions as there are so many and so many of them are the types of films I don’t watch. Also, in many cases there is no longer more than one available, unless you go to a used DVD store. Streaming services and TV channels don’t tend to offer you more than one version. Understandably.

But I thought it worthwhile for me to offer guidance on a few films that I’m well acquainted with. All are part of my extensive DVD collection (I love saying and writing “my extensive DVD collection.”) I will try avoid telling  you that one is BETTER than the other(s) though it will be, at times, unavoidable. In some cases the differences are a matter of taste and we all have different tastes — or so I’m told.

The Gold Rush (1925) Chaplin. There is the original version that was released in theaters in 1925 and then a 1942 re-release from Chaplin. The latter version includes Chaplin’s narration and is slightly shorter as Chaplin deleted a few scenes, notably ones featuring Georgia Hale, the female lead. In my opinion the narration is unnecessary and the deleted scenes are sorely missed, so I’d strongly recommend the original version. If you appreciate silent films than you’ll definitely favor the original. 

The Big Sleep (1946) Hawks. With my DVD of this great film you choose between the pre-release and theatrical versions. Without going into details, the major difference between the two is that the theatrical version has a greater emphasis on the romance between Bogart and Bacall. The pre-release is more plot heavy. To me, the plot is heavy enough and I dearly love the byplay between the two leads, so I always watch the theatrical version. Either is fine but I think the general consensus —if it matters to you, is that the romantic focus is essential to the film.

Fanny and Alexander (1982) Bergman. Here’s a case in which I’m going to say one version is far superior to the other. There is a theatrical version of Fanny and Alexander and the TV version. Watching the theatrical version is — in my humble opinion — just plain silly. Think of it this way, imagine watching three episodes of Breaking Bad edited into one episode. Fanny and Alexander was meant for TV, when you reduce its 320 minutes to 188 minutes you’re cutting down it to and into the bone. It’s silly that they even thought to make a theatrical version. Fanny and Alexander (the full version) is one of the great gems of cinema — even if it was originally for TV.

Das Boot (1981) Peterson. To me this a case of three bears where one of three is “just right” — the middle one. There is the first U.S. theatrical version which is 149 minutes. Too short. There is original German TV mini-series which is 282 minutes. Too long. Finally there is the director’s cut which is 208 minutes. Just right. Indeed the director’s cut is, for me one of the great films of all time. The other two versions are fine and if you love the story as I do watching all three isn’t a bad idea, I think if you do, you’ll settle on the director’s cut as the best of the three.

Blade Runner (1982) R. Scott. There have been four versions. The original U.S, theatrical version and the International version are probably pretty hard to find these days, which is just as well as they are not highly regarded. I don’t believe I’m over-stepping when I say that I’d not bother. Both feature voice over narration which is totally unnecessary and indeed distracting. Worse, they also feature a studio-imposed happy ending that maybe doesn’t ruin the film but doesn’t fit with its general tone. That leaves you with the two director’s versions, one from 1992 and the other from 2007. The latter was fully controlled by the director Ridley Scott and is the one that you’re most likely to come across today. Frankly I don’t know why anyone would bother with any other version but feel free to check out the others.

Apocalypse Now (1979) Coppola. Here’s the big one. Cinephiles are divided between the original version and Apocalypse Now Redux. The difference between the two is the added scenes in Redux which lengthen the film by fifteen minutes. I’ve read that more people like the original because it is tighter and gets to the crux of the film faster. I like the Redux better because to me it expands the story to include a bit more history and an exploration of imperialism and colonialism. I’d never get into an argument about which version is better. The best thing to do — if you really like the film — is watch them both. I have and…well, you know what I think.

Andrei Rublev (1966) Tarkovsky. This is an easy one. There is an original 203 minute cut and the director-approved version, which is twenty-two minutes shorter. The second time I watched Andrei Rublev, unlike the first time, I found myself a bit bored at times. When it was over I realized I’d watched the longer version by mistake. The third time I watched I was sure to watch the shorter version. I wasn’t bored for a second. That’s all I’ve got to say on the matter other than that you should feel free to watch the longer version, as opinions may differ.

Blackmail (1929) Hitchcock. There is a silent version and a talking version of this great film. It was made as studios were transitioning to sound, hence the two takes. I much prefer the silent version. Early talkies were not great and this is an example. Sound was just being developed for use in films and actors weren’t yet comfortable with it. This comes across in Blackmail. Also Blackmail is powerful in large part because of the striking visuals, these are emphasized more in the silent version. If you don’t like silents then by all means watch the talkie version, otherwise I’d strongly recommend the silent version.

Touch of Evil (1958) Welles. There are three versions. The original theatrical version (93 minutes), The Preview Version (108) minutes and the 1998 reconstruction (111 minutes). I’m not going to tell you outright which one to watch but I’ll say that the first version was butchered by the studio. The second version restores much of Welles’ vision. The third restores even more of it and eliminates the upbeat score that accompanies the opening tracking shot in the other versions. I don’t believe anyone prefers the originally released version and most prefer the last version — as do I. But the second version has it’s supporters, mostly people who like original score and think the third has awkward sound edits. I believe the opening scene needs to be seen without the score and with the ambient street noises as in version three.

If there’s anything else I can help you with please drop a line. 

Everybody Comes to Rick's: Thoughts After Another Viewing of a Cinematic Classic

Here’s some thoughts after having watched Casablanca for the millionth time.

The scene in which the Germans’ singing of Die Wacht am Rhein is overpowered by Laszlo leading everyone else in a stirring rendition of La Marseillaise is for me one of the best in cinema. It helps that some of the extras were refugees from Europe and were shedding real tears. How powerful it must have been for contemporary audiences!

It’s a small role by my goodness Peter Lorre is excellent as the slimy Ugarte. He was a brilliant actor and if anything underrated. He plays the scene with Rick beautifully as he acknowledges the American “despises” him but suggests Rick might be impressed that he has the letters of transit. Like with a lot of great actors there’s so much going on with his eyes. Also note his eyes when he is being arrested.

It always bothers me that Ilsa Lund refers to Sam, the African American piano player and singer, as “boy.” It’s racist but appropriate to the time. It’s also reflective of the times that Dooley Wilson — who played Sam — wasn’t featured in more films.

In the middle of the film Victor Lazlo goes to a meeting of the local underground with Carl. I’ve always wondered if someone at the meeting was in charge of refreshments. Were cookies served? Tea? Or alcohol? What topics were covered? Did they approve minutes? Were Robert's Rule of Order followed?

One thing that has made Casablanca such a great film is the supporting cast. I’m not just referring to Claude Rains, Paul Henreid, Conrad Veidt, Sydney Greentstreet and the aforementioned Lorre who were all excellent but the secondary supporting players: Leonid Kinskey, SZ Sakall, John Qualen and Marcel Dalio. The first three were regular supporting players in Hollywood for decades who appeared between them in dozens of excellent films. Dalio had been a star in France with featured roles in Grand Illusion and Rules of the Game. He had barely gotten out of Paris before the Nazi occupation. In the 1950s he played the Claude Rains character of Captain Renaud in a short-lived TV series based on the film. Charles McGraw played Rick in the kind of casting that doomed what little chance the show had.

There are a couple of scenes in which and Italian and French officer are arguing. Both are speaking in their native tongues which is, of course, nonsense. I suppose its supposed to provide a bit of comic relief but I find it overly silly, hardly enough to ruin a classic film but still…..

Ingrid Bergman may have never looked more beautiful on screen than she did in Casablanca. Indeed few actresses ever looked as radiant as she did as Ilsa.

During the Paris flashbacks Rick and Ilsa remind one another that “we said no questions.” Has that ever been a thing between couples having a fling? Seems odd. Rather hard to have conversations without any questions. Can’t be healthy for a relationship.

If they had to do a remake of Casablanca — and for the love of god I pray they never do — who the hell could you get to play Rick? Years ago I thought Kenneth Brannagh could pull it off. Later I thought maybe Leonardo DiCaprio. Now I think Jon Hamm could have a decade or so ago. Daniel Craig maybe when he was younger. Maybe Glenn Powell. Tom Hiddleston would be a good bet. Really it would be impossible though so why did I put myself through the exercise?

Conrad Veidt as Major Strasser is one of the better big screen Nazis of all time. He oozes a kind of slimy sophistication. Well-spoken, loves his caviar and is pure evil. I imagine most Nazi officers were more officious but for cinematic purposes you can hardly do better than Veidt.

Many decades ago when I first saw Casablanca I wondered how they managed to film on location (I was more young than stupid, to be fair). This speaks to the magic of Golden Age Hollywood. They created worlds from the other side of the Earth on their backlots — without the benefits of CGI. Watching Casablanca it’s hard to imagine that you’re NOT transported to Morocco in 1941. Movie magic.

Among so much else, ya know what else is perfect about Casablanca? The musical score. It was never melodramatic. It never got in the way but did what it was supposed — added to the experience.

The working title for the movie was Everybody Comes to Rick's. Not bad but Casablanca worked better.

Notice that twice when we break away from Sydney Greensreet’s character Ferrari, he’s employing a flyswatter with seeming effectiveness. Interesting. 

My main impression after my zillionth viewing of Casablanca is that it is as flawless a film as was ever made. The label classic absolutely applies. I never tire of it and never will.

Back by Popular Demand It's Films I've Watched Lately Some of Which I Loved Greatly

Walkabout

Moonstruck (1987) Jewison. Cher was brilliant and Olympia Dukakis top notch. But the rest of the cast — oh my —- talk about overacting. Director Norman Jewison tended to get broad performances in his films in this is a classic example. It’s amazing that Cher was so wonderfully restrained and I suppose if you care about Oscars, here's was well-earned. But Moonstruck is more notable for slapstick sitcom level acting from the likes of Nicolas Cage, Vincent Gardenia and Julie Bavasso. A different director could have taken the same script and made a more realistic, more believable and more compelling film. Jewison’s version felt like a case of a lot of people trying too hard. As love stories go it's terribly unconvincing. This was my first viewing since the film came out. It’ll be my last.

His Girl Friday (1940) Hawks. My favorite film. Period. It’s perfect. It’s hilarious. It’s smart. It’s innovative. It’s got some points to make (about politics and the press). It’s as perfectly-paced a movie as has ever been made. It’s got Cary Grant in one of his greatest performances (along with Mr. Lucky, Notorious and Talk of the Town). Rosalind Russell was far from the first choice to play Hildy, indeed they’d gone through most of the women in actor’s equity before “settling for” Mr. Russell. They couldn’t have done better. (That’s the kind of luck you need to make something this good.) As always in pictures from Hollywood’s Golden Age the supporting cast is crucial and here they came through with flying colors. I especially take notice of the cynical, world-weary newsmen played by Regis Toomey, Porter Hall, Frank Jenks and Roscoe Karns. And Billy Gilbert deserves plaudits for stealing his two scenes as the governor’s messenger, Joe Pettibone. His Girl Friday is like the Beatles, everything came together at the right time and right place and you can’t imagine it being any better.

The Magnificent Seven (1960) J. Sturges. Not really so magnificent. Of course I loved it when I was kid, the presence of Steve McQueen was enough to make to great picture in my mind. It was based on Kurosawa’s Seven Samurai which is to say it was re-imaging a classic. But it was ultimately a poor imitation. It would have been infinitely better if the Mexican villagers were allowed to speak Spanish, I mean beyond an occasional señor and gracias. All but one of those characters were cardboard cutouts. And speaking of one-dimensional characters, there were Eli Wallach and the the rest of the bandits. They were about as menacing as Yosemite Sam. And why is that the bad guys in movies back then happily ran towards gun fire? Even McQueen couldn’t save this picture. For one thing this was not the Mr. Cool we later got to know in movies such as The Great Escape and Bullit. Yul Bryner, James Coburn, Robert Vaughn and Charles Bronson were all wasted by a script that allowed for no real character development.  

Stardust Memories (1980) Allen. One of Woody’s best which is saying a lot in itself. I have no idea how many times I’ve watched the film since I saw it in Boston upon its original release. But I do know that I’ve enjoyed every viewing. I recall that some critics were miffed by how it seemingly poking fun at them. Evidence of their own thin skins and an ability to dish it out but not take it. Woody was clearly having fun spoofing everyone including himself. No one would make such a film who didn’t deep down appreciate his fans. No one would make such a film who was not introspective and thoughtful. No one would make such a film who wasn’t a comic genius. 

Walkabout (1971) Roeg. I’ve been watching Australian films on the Criterion Collection lately and though there’ve been a few misses, I’ve discovered several classic such as Picnic at Hanging Rock, My Brilliant Career and this film. Director Nicolas Roeg didn’t make much and even less that I’ve enjoyed but my goodness he hit it out of the ballpark with this look at a young brother and sister stranded in the Australian outback, ultimately finding a teenaged aborigine to guide them. It’s as beautifully shot a film as you’ll ever see and a masterclass in direction (how is it that Roeg didn’t do this more often?). It's meditative, original and a wonderful commentary on how modern culture isn't necessarily the best culture.

Action in the North Atlantic (1943) Lawson. Of course I like this picture. It honors the merchant marines serving in World War II. Though he later joined the army, my father was a merchant marine serving in World War II. He was at the helm of a ship that was torpedoed in the Arabian Sea by a Japanese submarine. So North Atlantic honors men like my dad who risked their lives to transport goods and weapons to the allies during the war. North Atlantic is — especially for a film of its era — a realistic account of what it was like to navigate seas swarming with enemy submarines. The cast is led by Humphrey Bogart and that’s a great start right there. Raymond Massey and regular supporting players like Alan Hale, Dane Clark and Sam Levene also feature. This film is one of many made during the war that was designed as war time propaganda. Like some it managed to both rally the Homefront and tell a rollicking good story.

Hey Everybody! It's Time for Another Edition of: `Some of the Films I've Watched Lately a Few of Which I Enjoyed Greatly

Evil Does Not Exist

Evil Does Not Exist (2023) Hamaguchi. Is the title meant to be ironic? This is just one of many questions posed by this the latest film from the Japanese director Ryusuke Hamaguchi, whose previous effort was the brilliant, Drive My Car. This is a shorter film but it packs in a lot. A corporation wants to set up a glamping (glamor camping) site near a small, tight-knit rural community. The local's reactions ranges from skepticism to outright hostility. We focus on a handyman who is single dad to a young daughter. But plot points don’t do this film justice. I don’t know, it is a complex story simply told or a simple story told with complexity? And the ending. I’ve never been so challenged. But it is a film that stays with you. It’s been six days since I saw it and it hasn’t left me yet and I can’t wait to revisit it.

Jewel Robbery (1932) Dieterle. I have no idea how this picture eluded me until now. What a delight. William Powell is always fun, in this case as a jewel thief, and my appreciation for Kay Francis grows every time I see her. These two co-star in this very pre-code film. Criminals escape punishment, marijuana is smoked (though not named), and premarital sex is most strongly suggested. Damn the production code! Depriving movie goers the rich variety of stories that could have been told for the thirty or so years of its enforcement. In Jewel Robbery Powell is charming, Francis sexy and together they are great fun. Like a lot of films from this era it's short, but what there is is choice.

Treasure of the Sierra Madre (19480 Huston. One of the great films of all time. Maybe seen at a dozen times now. Maybe more. Who counts? Walter Huston won a much deserved Best Supporting Actor Oscar for his performance but that fella Bogart was pretty damn good too and so for that matter was Tim Holt. There’s simply nothing wrong with and everything to love about this movie. Some films are classics and  you couldn’t make them any better in a thousand years. Primary credit to the director — Walter’s kid — John Huston. One thing I love about the film is the depth of the story. Madness, greed, companionship, trust, luck. Themes aplenty beautifully rendered.d

The Master. (2012) P.T. Anderson.  This was my third (perhaps fourth) viewing of The Master. I keep hoping for more but it doesn’t quite deliver. It feels like director Paul Thomas Anderson was holding back. There was more power to this story of fictional L. Ron Hubbard (Philip Seymour Hoffman) and one of his weirder acolytes (Joaquin Phoenix). Two powerhouse actors giving bravura performances but the whole does not live up to some of the many great pieces within this oft compelling film. For me Anderson has made a number of excellent films (notably Licorice Pizza, Punch Drunk Love, Phantom Thread, Boogie Nights) but keeps falling short of a masterpiece. One may be coming. I wish it were The Master because there's so much to it, yet there could have been more.

A Taste of Honey

A Taste of Honey (1961) Richardson. An unwanted pregnancy. Premarital sex. An interracial couple. An openly gay man. In a film from 1961? Who’d have thunk. A Taste of Honey must have been a bit of a scandal when it released. It was something of a forerunner of what was to come in the decade. This was my second viewing and I reckon not my last. There is a bleakness to the story furthered by the dark, grimy setting of urban London. There are unattractive characters, rotten luck, dashed dreams and desperation. But there is also love and hope. It’s a British Jarmusch or Kaurismäki without the lightness. It’s melancholia on film. It’s damn good not just as an early telling of controversial issues, but on its own merits.

Great Expectations (1946) Lean. This movie is positively ruined by one piece of disastrous casting. John Mills (Hayley’s dad) plays Pip starting when the character was nineteen. Mills was twice that age and looked even older. It’s damn ridiculous. You can never get past it. To top it off Mills didn’t give much of a performance. Everything else about the film is excellent and it does Dickens’ novel justice. Notably the cinema photography, the set designs and most of the cast. A fifteen-year-old Jean Simmons features and she’s a delight. But Mills…come on. 

Il Posto (1961) Olmi and I fidanzati (1963) Olmi. Two masterpieces from Ermanno Olmi. Two testaments to the fact that the simplest of stories told simply can carry immense power and make for great cinema. Il Posto is the story of a young man starting a life-long (and secure) position working at a desk in a big firm. Along the way he meets a charming young beauty who he hopes is the one. I fidanzati is about two finances who are separated when the man takes a job that he can’t pass up, out of town. It is a test of -- and ends being a testament to -- love. Olmi was primarily a documentarian and those sensibilities help inform these nominally fictional tales. Everyday life, the city, the factory, the office, the cafes, the hotels, the streets, the passing crowd, are all key characters in these stories and they are in their own way powerful and beautiful and interesting. Two great films.

Postcards From the Edge (1990) Nichols. I’m not even sure what the movie is supposed to be about. Whatever its purpose it widely missed the mark. Sure, Shirley MacLaine and Meryl Streep are wonderful and there are some excellent supporting players in the cast and boy howdy don’t we love that rollicking song at the end but….What are we seeing here? An interesting mother-daughter relationship? Sorry, friend it’s more like two big stars vamping. The perils of addiction and the difficulties of recovery? As one who's been there I can say we get little sense of that. The prices of fame? Yawn. There’s nothing to see here and it reminds me that director Mike Nichols had a lot more misses than hits in his career.

You know how to whistle, don't you, Steve? You just put your lips together and... blow: A Look at the Bogie/Bacall Classic To Have and Have Not

I watched To Have and Have Not (1944) Hawks last night. Here are a few not so random thoughts.

Humphrey Bogart starred in four films that were absolute masterpieces of American cinema: The Maltese Falcon, Casablanca, The Big Sleep and Treasure of the Sierra Madre. Any one of these films alone would cement Bogie’s place in the firmament of great Hollywood stars. But he also was in a second tier of terrific films and To Have and Have Not is among these along with The African Queen, Key Largo, Dark Passage, Petrified Forest, The Roaring Twenties, All Through the Night and Angels with Dirty Faces. Of these I think To Have Not is the best.

Walter Brennan gives a bravura performance as Eddie, Harry Morgan’s (Bogart) alcoholic friend. Eddie is by turns touching, pitiful and funny. “Ever been bit by a dead bee?” But it’s hard to watch Brennan knowing what a virulent racist he was. He reportedly did a jig upon learning that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. had been assassinated. Separating the artist from the man is often a challenge. One of my favorite films of all time is Red River but I wonder if I’d like it even more if I didn’t have to sit through Brennan and the equally bigoted John Wayne.

To Have and Have Not will always be remembered as the film in which Bogie and his future wife Lauren Bacall met and fell in love. Betty (as she was called) was only nineteen at the time but as her performance indicates, mature well beyond her chronological age. Bogie and Bacall had incredible onscreen chemistry and graced the screen together three more times, most notably in The Big Sleep. They married a little over a year after meeting. In contrast to the reprehensible Brennan, Bacall was a liberal Democrat and proud of it. She once said: "being a liberal is the best thing on Earth you can be. You are welcoming to everyone when you're a liberal. You do not have a small mind.”

Another lovely young woman in the cast was the then 18-year-old Dolores Moran. She did not marry as well as Bacall nor did she reach any level of stardom. Moran developed a reputation for promiscuity (she had an affair with director Howard Hawks) in those double standard days. Moran was a stunning young lady who definitely had some acting chops but her career came to nothing and she died of cancer at age 52. Sad.

Marcel Dalio appears in To Have as Frenchy. He had previously played opposite Bogie as the croupier in Casablanca Prior to that he had a not insignificant role in the French classic, Grand Illusion. Dalio was born Israel Moshe Blauschild. A Parisian and a Jew, he barely escaped the Nazis. According to his IMDb biography: “He waited until the last possible moment and finally, with the sound of artillery clearly audible, with Madeleine, fled in a borrowed car to Orleans and then, in a freight train, to Bordeaux and finally to Portugal. In Lisbon, they bribed a crooked immigration official and were surreptitiously given two visas for Chile. But on arriving in Mexico City, it was discovered the visas were rank forgeries. Facing deportation, Marcel and Madeleine found themselves making application for political asylum with virtually every country in the western hemisphere. Weeks passed until Canada finally issued them temporary visas, and they left for Montreal.” I believe there’s a good book and maybe even in a movie in Dalio’s story. From 1941 through the early sixties he appeared mostly in American films (at least two more with Bogart) and TV shows. He appeared in such films Gentlemen Prefer Blondes, Sabrina and How to Steal a Million, before spending the last part of his career back in France.

To Have and Have Not is one of the many pictures produced during the war that also served as propaganda for the allied war effort. It was the good guys besting the bad guys and there was no ambiguity about who was good and who was bad. Such films managed to be entertaining, comforting and inspiring. In many cases, as here, they were good movies to boot.

One of the delights of To Have and Have Not is Hoagy Carmichael who portrays Cricket, the piano player at the bar that is the film’s primary setting. He had a natural charm and soft, easy, pleasing voice and could really tickle the ivories. His only other really notable film appearance was in The Best Years of Our Lives. Of course Carmichael’s real claim to fame was as a composer, songwriter and musician. Among his compositions were Stardust, Georgia on My Mind, The Nearness of You and Heart and Soul. Not too shabby.

To Have and Have Not boasts an excellent cast (although Sheldon Leonard plays a Frenchman and a German actor with a German accent plays another Frenchman) but also benefits from the direction of Howard Hawks who has to rank fairly on a top ten list of all time great American directors. He was a master at pacing and though not renowned for visual artistry could frame a shot with the best of them. He made this film during his peak years, after His Girl Friday and before The Big Sleep. At the time there was no one better save perhaps Hitchcock.

The film is very loosely based on a novel by Ernest Hemingway. I read the book and it has about as much to do with the film version as does the Pirates of Penzance. The screenplay was written by William Faulkner although much of the dialogue was improvised. So while it is true that two Pulitzer Prize winning authors contributed to the screenplay, they ultimately had little to do with it.

Final thoughts: A damn fun movie, even if you have seen it numerous times, as I have. Between the three Bs (Bogie, Bacall and Brennan) you’ve got all you’ll ever need out of a cast. There is action, adventure, comedy, music, romance and people with high ideals winning over a me-first cynic. Jolly good.